This is something that has bothered me for a while but I haven't really thought about in concrete terms till recently.

I don't like it in fiction when the narrator takes a moral side. I like it rather when you get an introspective look at all the characters' motivations and are allowed to decide for yourself what you think about the themes.

When it's a basic 'good versus evil' plot that's unavoidable and acceptable, but when they raise a complex moral question with no unambiguous 'right' answer, it annoys me when they try to give you a definete answer. 'Minority Report' is an example of this. It raises the question 'Is this ethically ambiguous justice system justified by the fact that the murder rate is zero?' And answers with a definitive 'NO!' in all caps.

Another different type of this narrator moralism is evident in Ron Howard movies. In Beautiful Mind (If you've ever read the novel), you see John Nash's loveable, positive attributes and none of his negative attributes that can't be explained away as part of his 'charm'. They took a historical personality and surgically infused all the 'right' they could muster to draw the audience squarely into his corner. That's why I'm not going to see that new boxing movie.

I think it makes a much more deep, interesting movie if they present the characters as the people they are, without telling the audience what side to take. Or, if you're going to raise a philosophical question, have the characters answer it for themselves while still presenting both sides fairly and allowing the audience to explore the question and find their own answer.

These may seem like two disparate problems...on one hand, supplying easy answers to difficult questions, and on the other, presenting your protagonist as an unfailingly virtuous soul. But they both represent the general worldview that everything can be easily labelled 'good' or 'bad'. An interesting moral theme is one where there isn't a definete right answer. And an interesting character isn't one who simply has 'virtues' and 'flaws', but rather one who sees the world in his own unique way and acts according to that vision. That's why I think narrator moralism is a problem -- it makes a movie too straightforward and boring.

First off, this is a great topic with an equally excellent argument against storytellers from presenting their works with a fixed agenda… trying to side you with the “hero” of the story.

Hmm… I’ve found a few morally ambiguous movies that don’t tackle any important issues… like Rushmore or Napoleon Dynamite (I think both are brilliant). Can anybody recommend any movies that are impartial and present important moral issues to ponder?

Is it possible to not take a side when telling a story with great moral weight? I think those are called documentaries (excluding Michael Moore’s offerings)... ;-)

Note: I was going to recommend Hero as a good movie that presented most of the characters with flaws equal to their admirable qualities without taking a moral stance. However, it did raise the issue of… is peace worth fighting for? Are the future lives of millions worth the deaths of a few? The movie answered this question with a “YES”. Maybe it should have ended with Jet Li walking towards the gates and faded to black… or am I confused?

I can't think of any movies off the top of my head, but the new Battlestar Galactica is ripe with ambiguous moral questions. And, the protagonists tend to quite often hold diametrically opposite viewpoints.

And I would say that Million Dollar Baby doesn't take a definete side on euthanasia.